About your Search

20110201
20110228
Search Results 0 to 9 of about 10 (some duplicates have been removed)
obama, just made a big trip there last fall on bush's foreign policy emphasis on building a new and substantively new relationship with india, and really after the enormous disappointments of a long term u.s. strategic partnership with pakistan, this is not a new recommendation. we had a partnership with pakistan, but it failed in some respects. i definitely want to get back to that, and then, of course, your third area you look at which is iran, iraq, the destablization caused by the u.s. invasion of iraq and your recommendation that ultimately we're going to have to find a mixing in china moment here where no matter how it seems, we come to some kind of different accommodation where even perhaps a new alliance with iran, so let's take those three with israel and palestine first. >> guest: we are committed to the survival of israel. that's not an issue. if iran were to develop nuclear weapons which the israelis say is 35 years out, that's a different issue. in 1973-74, it was. at that time we gave $3 billion in aide which was 25% of gdp, which today is 1.5% of gdp. the relation
was, that he did it just for nations expectations and even present obama has said many kind things about your father is a leader and as a president. which is why i was interested in one of the things you wrote in the book. use it given the fact that every republican holds up reagan as the standardbearer, the one piece of common ground that i think unites the whole republican party. you right in the book ronald reagan couldn't win the republican nomination today. what you mean by that? >> guest: what i mean by that, i had this conversation with newt gingrich a while back. i said it is interesting that the liberals seem to only need the ideology to follow. conservatives are always looking for someone to lead them and if that person is and there they break into factions. and to get all these different factions all over the map, and so what i say there there is if ronald reagan is president and throws his hat into the ring in 2008 or 2012 who would in fact attack him because all you can look at would be his gubernatorial years. signing no-fault divorce, raise taxes, sign an abortion bi
of a potentially invigorated new alliance with of course president obama just made a trip there last fall. this falls on actually bush's foreign policy emphasis on building a new and substantively different kind of relationship with india and really after the enormous disappointment of a long-term u.s. strategic partnership with pakistan this isn't a new recommendation. we had a partnership with pakistan that seems to have failed in some respects. i definitely want to get back and then your third area that you look at which is iran, iraq, the destabilization caused by the u.s. invasion of iraq and the recommendation you have to find a mixing in china moment where no matter how unpalatable it may seem we come to some different a combination or perhaps new kind of alliance with iran. israel and palestine first. >> guest: we are committed to the survivalist is real tough -- israel. the weapons that israel say rf3 to five years out, that's another issue but under the current circumstance, the issue is not the survival of israel. in 1973, 74, it was the relationship itself, the foundation is i
time coming that he didn't just antithen-president obama has said many kind things about your father as a leader and as a president, which is why i was interested. one of the things you wrote in your book, given the fact every republican holds up reagan as the standard, the one piece of common ground that unites the whole party, you write in the but ronald reagan couldn't win the republican nomination today. what do you mean by that? >> guest: what i mean by that is i had this conversation with new gingrich alana backend i said it's interesting, the liberals seem to need the ideology to follow. conservatives are always looking for someone to lead them. and if that person isn't there they break into factions and you get all these different factions all over the map. so what i say is if ronald reagan is never present and he throws his hat into the ring in 2008 or for 2012, who would in fact attack him? all you could look at what the his gubernatorial years, raise taxes, an abortion bill, and my god, he was a union leader. so you sit there and think about the ads that would come out aga
of a potentially invigorated new alignment with india. of course, president obama just made a trip there last fall. this falsehood actually bush's foreign policy's foreign policy emphasis on building a new substantively different kind of relationship with india. and really, after the appointment of a long-term you a strategic partnership with pakistan, this is not a new recommendation. we've had a partnership with pakistan. it seems to fail in some key respects, so i want to get back to that. and then, of course, your third area that you look at which is iran, iraq, the destabilization caused by the u.s. invasion of iraq, and your recommendation that ultimately we will have to find a sort of nixon and china moment here where no matter how unpalatable it may seem we have come to some kind of different kind of accommodation, or even perhaps a new kind of alliance with iran. so let's hit israel and palestine first. >> guest: we are committed to the survival of the region. the survival of is she real is not an issue. if iran were to develop nuclear weapons, which israelis now say is 35 years out, that
prospect of a potentially invigorated alliance with president obama just made the big trick last fall and this falls on bush's foreign policy emphasis on building a new substantively different kind of relationship with india and really after the enormous disappointment of the long term partnership we have a partnership with pakistan it seems to have failed in some respects. but i definitely want to get back to that and of course your fear. but you look at is iran, iraq, the destabilization caused by the u.s. invasion of iraq and your recommendation that ultimately we are going to have to find the nixon and china moment where no matter how unpalatable it may seem we come to some different kind of accommodation or even a new alliance with iran. so let's take those three. israel and palestine first. >> guest: we are committed to the survival of israel. it is something that's not an issue. if you're on what to build a nuclear weapon, which the israelis say is now three to five years out, that's another issue. but the current circumstances is not the survival of israel. in 197374 their it
a -- adjust the nation's expectations. many kind things have been said by mr. obama about your father as a leader and president. one of the things you wrote in the book, given the fact that every republican holds him up as the standard bearer, the one piece of public ground. you write in the book, ronald reagan could not win the republican nomination today. >> guest: i had this conversation with newt gingrich. they said, you know, it's interesting. the liberals seem to only knee that ideology to follow. conservatives are always looking for someone to lead them. if that person isn't there they break into factions. you get all these different factions all over the map. so what i say there is if ronald reagan is never present and throws his hat into the ring in 2008 or 2012, who would, in fact, attacking? all you could look at would be his gubernatorial years. the no-fault divorce. raise taxes. sign the abortion bill. my god, he was a union leader. you sit there and think about the ads that come out against him. anti-tax, raise taxes. anti-abortion, abortion. pro marriage, you know, no-f
social democracy, and obama proved it this time around. but it's been less than liberal for a long time. i think liberal is the liberalism of john locke and be be -- subsequent liberals, 19th century liberals. i'm a 19th century liberal, but we've been co-opted by liberalism. at some point i think in the progressive movement the progressives took the word liberal and used it for their own purposes. but they, the liberals of the american experience are the liberals of the founding fathers and the liberals of the conservative movement. we are real liberals, but this is an argument that will take a long time to work out. >> host: in your 1992 book, "conservative crack-up," you wrote, given the right disposition, a liberal can be a conservative, and a conservative can be a liberal. why have more student t of politics not made this conciliatory point? >> guest: well, i'm afraid that politics today is, the lines are drawn, and you're either on my side, or you're on their side. and that's a shame. because in the '20s people could be liberal on some things and conservative on other things, and
refusing to come back to talks? >> guest: i feel bad for barak obama in the sense that i've had opportunities to talk with him when he's in the senate. he truly understands the issue and think and wants to solve it. it's important to him. he gets elected in the middle of the gaza crisis, takes office during the end of the crisis, and ends up with a prime minister who i personally feel is not at all committed to peace. if you look back at his records in the 90s, is a master maneuver and is never tiring of trying to outmaneuver and throw faints in one direction while moving in another direction. how many times do we believe in what he says i had no idea they were going to make that announcement. it's like every time a u.s. official is going to meet with him, they come up with an announcement. he's covering one flank while moving in another direction, but the net result is that there's no confidence in his commitment to peace, and if he wanted to make a new government, it is there for the asking. he's in the wings. he could form a government that would support peace. he doesn't wan
Search Results 0 to 9 of about 10 (some duplicates have been removed)